Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Must read book for R1b folk

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The egg in the stream

    Originally posted by Stevo
    That is not entirely correct. The fields of history, archaeology, and anthropology are not dominated by a few geneticists, and there are plenty of scholars who still believe that W. Europe suffered a series of intrusions beginning in the late Neolithic Period.

    Perhaps you can find one of your experts who will explain why he thinks R1b is ~30,000 years old and R1b1c ~15,000 years old when the haplotype evidence indicates that R1b1c is ~8,000 years old.

    I have asked that question of a couple of experts, and their only answer is to speculate that all the R1b1c lines but one died or daughtered out around 6,000 B.C.!

    So where did they get those 30,000-year and 15,000-year figures if there is nothing within R1b and R1b1c to indicate they are that old?

    Did they develop an hypothesis first and only then scramble up ages to match it?

    You may accept the word of a few men you regard as authorities, John, but I would like some explanations.

    Dogmatic assertions are strangely unconvincing, especially when they are riddled with pretty obvious holes.

    Besides, if somebody didn't "swim against the stream," the egg of truth would never be fertilized and come to fruition.

    There is no real evidence - NONE - that R1b has been in W. Europe since before the LGM. The speculations and opinions of Oppenheimer and Sykes are NOT evidence, by the way.
    I think listening to different ideas and conclusions will help us get closer to the truth. If we lack the ability to listen to critics then the truth may never be found.

    I agree, the evidence doesn't seem to be there about specifically R1b DNA being found in Western Europe before the LGM. I haven't seen much work on it anywhere. Maybe I just haven't found any.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Kathleen Carrow
      I am currently reading Oppenheimer's book and he cites Cunliffe's theories.

      Does he talk about I1b also? Oppenheimer believes that some of that was definitely in Scotland, Ireland via coastal route after the LGM.

      I might have to get it( his book) as my mtDNA J2 is considred Atlantic Fringe
      I just order the book also title "The origins of the British" by Stephen Oppenheimer, pretty interesting from what I've read so far, we could fight and fuss all we want about who's right and who's not, it's just science, and there are always new thought's every year coming out.
      I think it's great we have men like Stephen Oppenheimer, Bryan Sykes and Spencer Wells.

      What about the Neanderthal's, people seem to forget about these guy's, they where in Europe before Cro-Magnon.
      Their are still alot of mysteries and guestions to be found yet in our quest for the holy DNA grail.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by NormanGalway
        Stevo,

        The apparent "youth" of a Y-DNA line is par for the course for the Y-chromosome as a whole. I know you know this, because you refer to "daughtering out" - male lines die out a lot faster than female lines. Why would "Adam" be tens of thousands of years younger than "Eve" otherwise?

        The story of R1b and its various subclades is no different. Do you really think that there were a continent's worth of male homo sapiens in Europe that were either slaughtered or out-bred or out-competed by R1b1c in the last several millenia?
        "A continent's worth of male homo sapiens," Norman?

        How many people do you imagine there were populating prehistoric Europe?

        Besides, do you imagine I think R1bs had to cover every corner of Europe "slaughtering" and "out-breeding" in order to move into W. Europe and become the biggest y-haplogroup there?

        I don't know about the straw argument you have chosen to argue against, but I do not believe R1bs were in W. Europe before the LGM, no.

        Originally posted by NormanGalway
        If so, where is the evidence? Nobody (yet) knows what happened to the Neaderthals, who did not disappear until @35,000 years ago and existed in much smaller numbers. Yet suddenly, in the much more recent past, a magic wand changed the population of Paleolithic Europe into R1b-land?
        Where is the evidence that R1b was in W. Europe before the LGM?

        We know there is a lot of R1b there now and that R1b is predominant in those areas in which the various ancient western Indo-Europeans dwelt and in which centum Indo-European languages are now spoken.

        Originally posted by NormanGalway
        I don't think so. The burden of proof is on you for your theory, which strains credulity because of what it requires. Once upon a time, you cited archeological and anthropological evidence on these boards, yet know they get chucked out the window to defend your pet theory?
        I haven't "chucked" anything out the window. I think archaeological and anthropological evidence gets ignored by several of the current pundits in their attempts to assert their speculations. It is a fact that archaeological and anthropological evidence is subject to interpretation and that not all scholars agree. There is evidence of disturbance and intrusion into W. Europe beginning in the late Neolithic Period.

        There are many scholars who believe, for example, that the Celts and their language and culture were intrusive in the British Isles, that they did not just sort of "spread" among the natives via some form of osmosis. The folks at Trinity College in Dublin acknowledge those scholars in the opening pages of their paper The Longue Duree (although it takes the opposite position). If you wish to believe that all scholars accept the idea that the current W. European population descends mostly from Paleolithic "aborigines," that is your business, but it is in reality far from the consensus among scholars.

        What I object to is the dogmatic assertion of what amounts to speculation. One reads it all the time: "If you are R1b, your ancestors were Cro-Magnons and painted the Lascaux caves," etc.

        Hooo-wheee! Right!

        Why not say, "We think this might be the case, but we could be wrong"?

        Why not point out that the INTERNAL evidence, the evidence from within R1b1c itself, from its own haplotypes, indicates an age of only about 8,000 years?

        Personally, I think the whole R1b=Cro-Magnons thing "strains credulity," especially since there is no real evidence to support it.

        BTW, I also recognize that your current opposition to almost everything I post, Norman, probably has its roots less in a real grasp of the evidence than in the fact that I had the temerity to suggest that the Finns might have once looked somewhat Mongolian. Apparently that rubbed you the wrong way because you got some kind of autosomal report that gave you a "Finno-Ugric" percentage.
        Last edited by Stevo; 12 November 2006, 02:04 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Stevo,

          "Why not point out that the INTERNAL evidence, the evidence from within R1b1c itself, from its own haplotypes, indicates an age of only about 8,000 years?"

          Reread my post, Stevo: "The apparent "youth" of a Y-DNA line is par for the course for the Y-chromosome as a whole...Why would "Adam" be tens of thousands of years younger than "Eve" otherwise?"

          You chose to ignore this because it hamstrings your argument.

          When you first appeared on the boards, you were open-minded and interested in different types of evidence. Now you have become dogmatic and ad hominem.

          The difference: you now know your haplogroup, and want desperately for it to be the source of the "Indo Europeans" instead of Cro-magnon cave painters. Whatever floats your boat.

          Incidentally, your hope of "analyzing" the motives for my critique are ad hominem and silly. You are after the noble pursuit of truth while I am here for revenge?

          That's self-congratulatory and childish. Why not stick to the argument and give the fallacies a miss?

          which haplogroup do you think populated paleolithic Europe if not your own? are they now extinct or still around?
          Last edited by NormanGalway; 12 November 2006, 02:37 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by NormanGalway

            Reread my post, Stevo: "The apparent "youth" of a Y-DNA line is par for the course for the Y-chromosome as a whole...Why would "Adam" be tens of thousands of years younger than "Eve" otherwise?"

            You chose to ignore this because it hamstrings your argument.
            I read it the first time. I found it unconvincing.

            It does not resolve the issue at hand: why it is any more likely that all R1b1c lines but one died out or daughtered out around 6,000 B.C. than that M269 first appeared around that time.

            Your answer seems to be that entire y-haplogroups die back to one progenitor on a frequent basis (a thing decidedly unproven).

            My response is that mutations appear on an even more frequent basis. In fact, we know mutations appear. We don't know that about the regular reduction of entire y-haplogroups to a single progenitor.

            Originally posted by NormanGalway
            When you first appeared on the boards, you were open-minded and interested in different types of evidence. Now you have become dogmatic and ad hominem.
            That's rather ironic, isn't it, given the nature of your latest posts, especially this one?

            I have not engaged in any name-calling. You do in this last post of yours, though.

            Originally posted by NormanGalway
            The difference: you now know your haplogroup, and want desperately for it to be the source of the "Indo Europeans" instead of Cro-magnon cave painters. Whatever floats your boat.
            No, I believe R1b or R1b1c represents the western or centum branch of the Indo-Europeans.

            You can disagree, and apparently you do.

            Originally posted by NormanGalway
            Incidentally, your hope of "analyzing" the motives for my critique are ad hominem and silly. You are after the noble pursuit of truth while I am here for revenge?

            That's self-congratulatory and childish. Why not stick to the argument and give the fallacies a miss?

            which haplogroup do you think populated paleolithic Europe if not your own? are they now extinct or still around?
            I can put 2 and 2 together, Norman. You began arguing with me in threads about my y-haplogroup soon after that stupid thread on the physical appearance of the Finns, a thread in which your annoyance at me was pretty apparent. I quit posting in it well before it ended, in part because what I had to say was so obviously offensive to some people, including yourself.

            Now you pursue me in order to contradict what I have to say in threads that have nothing to do with your own y-haplogroup.

            And you accuse me of being childish?

            Last edited by Stevo; 12 November 2006, 05:32 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              No, now I'm accusing you of being paranoid.

              "Pursuing" you in threads? How's this - you can post all of the howlers you want (eg, describing welsh people in a way that they themselves disagree with, the asiatics of Finland, etc) and I will ignore them.

              But for the record, it would be nice to see some more of the old Stevo, and less of the haplo-fanatic tilting at indo-european windmills.

              Comment


              • #22
                Neanderthals

                Originally posted by Guy
                I just order the book also title "The origins of the British" by Stephen Oppenheimer, pretty interesting from what I've read so far, we could fight and fuss all we want about who's right and who's not, it's just science, and there are always new thought's every year coming out.
                I think it's great we have men like Stephen Oppenheimer, Bryan Sykes and Spencer Wells.

                What about the Neanderthal's, people seem to forget about these guy's, they where in Europe before Cro-Magnon.
                Their are still alot of mysteries and guestions to be found yet in our quest for the holy DNA grail.
                Yeah, I was thinking about those guys not too long ago. I heard a recent report came out regarding the Neanderthals last stand being somewhere in a region near Gibraltar. Perhaps occurring around 30,000 to 35,000 ya. I find it interesting because they probably had to compete against modern humans as well the beginning of the LGM period. Perhaps a reduction in resources in their common diet because of rapid environmental changes to a colder time didn't help matters.

                Like Stevo I'm a bit confused about the ancient lineage of R1b. If R1b1c is around 8,000 years old then there's several thousands of years that have gone by where R1b did not mutate. How does it account for the missing mutations between a span of 20,000 plus years that modern human beings were in Europe. Maybe R1b1c and all the other subclades are much older than expected, or the geneticists missed a massive gap of time.

                Comment


                • #23
                  What I don’t understand here are the numbers. R1b is supposed to be 30000 years old, yet the whole so called genetic journey from Africa is believed to last 70000 years. I understand, of course, it’s a new science and haplogroup’s ages and relations to each other will have to be sooner or later put in order; sort of like periodic table of elements. I think it is an important cause of confusion. If above numbers are correct, the diversity between r1bc subclades in Europe should be far greater, than distance between oldest European r1b subclades to Asian r1b, r, r1a or even p, q. I’ve red, some European r1b scores are close to p or q. I don’t know much about the snp scores and how to compare them, but logic says that diversity of r1b subclades in Europe in relation to the distance from the root, r/r1a should be a sound factor to determine its overall age.

                  If r1bc’s and r1b’s scores are tight, than its overall age must be younger, unless one put another 0 behind the genetic journey 70000 number. The idea, the line almost died out to the last male and than bounced back, kind of props up the whole theory with a stick and makes it look like a house of cards to me.
                  Pretty much like so called Iron Age elites who were invading, setting up Iron Age cultures, living the language behind and disappearing into tin air, without messing up genetics.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by NormanGalway
                    No, now I'm accusing you of being paranoid.
                    Okay.

                    Originally posted by NormanGalway
                    "Pursuing" you in threads? How's this - you can post all of the howlers you want (eg, describing welsh people in a way that they themselves disagree with, the asiatics of Finland, etc) and I will ignore them.
                    Good. Ignore my "howlers." Attempting to marginalize my arguments via name-calling and silly labels is a waste of everyone's time anyway.

                    Besides, what I wrote about the Welsh was based on what I have personally seen of Welsh people. I haven't seen any evidence that Welsh people disagree with what I wrote.

                    What I wrote of the Finns was based on historical descriptions of them as well as their genetic relationship to Asiatic populations that appear as was described.

                    Originally posted by NormanGalway
                    But for the record, it would be nice to see some more of the old Stevo, and less of the haplo-fanatic tilting at indo-european windmills.
                    What you want is a good ol' Stevo who agrees with you. Sorry. In this case I don't.

                    I really believe what I believe, and I have good, sound reasons for it.

                    I could be wrong; I freely admit that.

                    But so could you.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by milestone
                      What I don’t understand here are the numbers. R1b is supposed to be 30000 years old, yet the whole so called genetic journey from Africa is believed to last 70000 years. I understand, of course, it’s a new science and haplogroup’s ages and relations to each other will have to be sooner or later put in order; sort of like periodic table of elements. I think it is an important cause of confusion. If above numbers are correct, the diversity between r1bc subclades in Europe should be far greater, than distance between oldest European r1b subclades to Asian r1b, r, r1a or even p, q. I’ve red, some European r1b scores are close to p or q. I don’t know much about the snp scores and how to compare them, but logic says that diversity of r1b subclades in Europe in relation to the distance from the root, r/r1a should be a sound factor to determine its overall age.

                      If r1bc’s and r1b’s scores are tight, than its overall age must be younger, unless one put another 0 behind the genetic journey 70000 number. The idea, the line almost died out to the last male and than bounced back, kind of props up the whole theory with a stick and makes it look like a house of cards to me.
                      Pretty much like so called Iron Age elites who were invading, setting up Iron Age cultures, living the language behind and disappearing into tin air, without messing up genetics.
                      Excellent points. Those are some of the same things that have occurred to me: an R1b1c too uniform in W. Europe to be as old as some experts claim and overwhelmingly predominant in most of the regions where centum Indo-European languages prevail (and significant in all the rest). Couple those things with the fact that where R1a prevails so do satem Indo-European languages rather than centum ones, and one starts to get the picture.

                      Hey, maybe I'm wrong, but it never hurts to explore alternatives, especially when there are large holes in the conventional wisdom.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Stevo
                        Perhaps you can find one of your experts who will explain why he thinks R1b is ~30,000 years old and R1b1c ~15,000 years old when the haplotype evidence indicates that R1b1c is ~8,000 years old.
                        Why don't we back the argument up?

                        Who, exactly, said that R1b1c is 15,000 years old and where did they say it?

                        What evidence indicates to you that R1b1c is 8,000 years old? What dataset, methodology, and assumptions were used to come to that conclusion?

                        We can't really have a dialog based on "people say" and "so-called experts claim".[/QUOTE]

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by vineviz
                          Why don't we back the argument up?

                          Who, exactly, said that R1b1c is 15,000 years old and where did they say it?

                          What evidence indicates to you that R1b1c is 8,000 years old? What dataset, methodology, and assumptions were used to come to that conclusion?

                          We can't really have a dialog based on "people say" and "so-called experts claim".
                          Here are Dr. McEwan's calculations.

                          Here is a brief exchange with Ken Nordtvedt on this issue.

                          Take a look at post #84 (by lgmayka) on this thread here.

                          I was given the 15,000-year figure for R1b1c by Dr. McEwan via a private email exchange he and I had. He explained that the 30,000-year age estimate is for R1b. R1b1c is actually believed to be much younger than R1b.

                          Here is an entire thread on this subject elsewhere.

                          I think the word "experts" in this context refers to folks like Wells, Sykes, and Oppenheimer who believe that R1b is ~30,000 years old. It's quicker than writing all their names out all the time.

                          I would actually prefer to carry on a discussion of this subject in the thread I linked above. I have been planning on cutting back my posting on this forum simply because I have a limited amount of time and I prefer dna-forums.org to this one.
                          Last edited by Stevo; 14 November 2006, 10:22 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Stevo
                            I would actually prefer to carry on a discussion of this subject in the thread I linked above. I have been planning on cutting back my posting on this forum simply because I have a limited amount of time and I prefer dna-forums.org to this one.
                            Thanks for the elucidation.

                            I read through your links, and the only person I could find who provided an actual estimate of the MRCA for R1b1c is John McEwan. That estimate was about 7,500 years. Which means that the founding of R1b1c is almost certainly older than that, but how much older is an open question. It could be much older IF there was a strong bottleneck or strong founder effect, as McEwan observed, but certainly not younger. Thus, his estimate is a lower bound by definition.

                            Cinnioglu (2004) gave three estimates for the time of expansion for M269+ (using different methodologies) ranging from 12,000 to 23,000 years ago.

                            In short, if someone were to suggest that R1b1c is 10,000 to 15,000 years old I don't know how you'd go about demonstrating that they were seriously in error.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              vinevez,

                              I think you will find that the timeline is not "in error", but instead skewed towards R1b1c=Indo-European. This is the great white whale that Stevo is after. As a result, anything that conflicts with that -- such as the arguments of the many leading geneticists who believe in europe's paleolithic continuity (some of whom, like spencer wells, are part of Stevo's clade, so it can't just be put down to sour grapes) -- gets dismissed. or reviled. etc.

                              nice point, btw.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                McEwan's data and analysis have not been published, nor been subject to peer review as are most of the other articles and books referred to on this thread. In any case, any analysis that concludes that the subclades of R1b are older than R1b itself is obviously flawed.

                                John

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X